§

Ex Parte Eller et al

14044050 (P.T.A.B. Nov. 20, 2018)
Ex Parte Eller et al

9 Cited authorities

  1. Pfizer v. Apotex

    480 F.3d 1348 (Fed. Cir. 2007)   Cited 383 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding the district court clearly erred when it failed to consider relevant prior art

  2. In re O'Farrell

    853 F.2d 894 (Fed. Cir. 1988)   Cited 168 times   9 Legal Analyses
    Finding patent obvious where the prior art provided a "reasonable expectation of success"

  3. Galderma Labs., L.P. v. Tolmar, Inc.

    737 F.3d 731 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 77 times   7 Legal Analyses
    Holding where the claimed value fell within prior art range, burden of production switched to the party opposing the obviousness challenge, while burden of proof remanded with challenger

  4. Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Teva Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc.

    752 F.3d 967 (Fed. Cir. 2014)   Cited 63 times   5 Legal Analyses
    Finding no clear error in district court's fact finding that "entecavir's ‘effectiveness against hepatitis B without known toxicity issues’ was ‘not unexpected ,’ " and deferring to district court's finding that this was not sufficient evidence of nonobviousness

  5. In re Baxter Travenol Labs

    952 F.2d 388 (Fed. Cir. 1991)   Cited 96 times   3 Legal Analyses
    Evaluating teaching of prior art at the time of disclosure

  6. Application of Leshin

    277 F.2d 197 (C.C.P.A. 1960)

    Patent Appeal No. 6554. April 6, 1960. Morrison, Kennedy Campbell, Luther E. Morrison, New York City, for appellant. Clarence W. Moore, Washington, D.C. (Raymond E. Martin, Washington, D.C., of counsel), for Commissioner of Patents. Before WORLEY, Chief Judge, RICH, MARTIN and SMITH, Judges, and Judge WILLIAM H. KIRKPATRICK. United States Senior Judge for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania, designated to participate in place of Judge O'Connell, pursuant to provisions of Section 294(d), Title 28

  7. Section 103 - Conditions for patentability; non-obvious subject matter

    35 U.S.C. § 103   Cited 6,172 times   492 Legal Analyses
    Holding the party seeking invalidity must prove "the differences between the claimed invention and the prior art are such that the claimed invention as a whole would have been obvious before the effective date of the claimed invention to a person having ordinary skill in the art to which the claimed invention pertains."

  8. Section 6 - Patent Trial and Appeal Board

    35 U.S.C. § 6   Cited 188 times   63 Legal Analyses
    Giving the Director authority to designate "at least 3 members of the Patent Trial and Appeal Board" to review "[e]ach appeal, derivation proceeding, post-grant review, and inter partes review"

  9. Section 1.136 - [Effective until 1/19/2025] Extensions of time

    37 C.F.R. § 1.136   Cited 17 times   30 Legal Analyses

    (a) (1) If an applicant is required to reply within a nonstatutory or shortened statutory time period, applicant may extend the time period for reply up to the earlier of the expiration of any maximum period set by statute or five months after the time period set for reply, if a petition for an extension of time and the fee set in § 1.17(a) are filed, unless: (i) Applicant is notified otherwise in an Office action; (ii) The reply is a reply brief submitted pursuant to § 41.41 of this title; (iii)